40 ms·
Agree. But my point is that people adapt and learn. They assumed PageRank was still ruling and could be somewhat trusted, and now they're learning -a little lat
by quickConclusion 10y ago
Agree. But my point is that people adapt and learn. They assumed PageRank was still ruling and could be somewhat trusted, and now they're learning -a little late- that FB's popular randomnewssite.biz should be challenged.
Maybe something new will happen at the next election, but it will be harder to convince people with this type of fake news.
- danso 10y agoI think you give users too much credit. I don't use Facebook often, but this "Related Articles" caught my eye when it popped up in the newsfeed: http://imgur.com/a/83kzS http://imgur.com/a/83kzS There's no differentiation between the 3 items in terms of visual layout, and the domains of the respective news items are visually deprioritized by Facebook's design. If you don't actually click through to "bigbluevision.org" -- and studies claim that 50-60%+ people just read a headline before sharing/moving on -- the claim that "Obama's Lawyers Official Admit Birth Certificate is Fake" has as much cognitive impression as ABC News's "Obama Calls Conversation With Trump'Excellent'". Seeing a bunch of fake headlines, over time, would seem to have the same effect as watching advertisements. The viewer doesn't have to do anything, but are affected nonetheless.